• Based on his opinions (often dissents on our core issues and values) in which he often differed from the views of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who was so often the moderate “swing vote” on a closely divided Supreme Court), Judge Alito’s elevation “would shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court on matters of core concern to the Reform Movement;” and

• Judge Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court “would likely contribute significantly to reshaping American jurisprudence in a direction that would jeopardize those core values.”

The group decided to make its announcement before the confirmation hearings because of Judge Alito's extensive record on these issues:

• As his record is so expansive and consistent, it is far less likely that any new information will be presented during the hearings process that would alter our position. In the past, the Union has acted on several nominations where a nominee’s record was well established and the timing of a board meeting preceded hearings—with the clear assumption that if the hearings substantively changed the view of the candidate the decision would be revisited. (In none of these cases did the hearings have that effect).

The Union will review the resolution after the hearings, but,

...if disclosures in the hearings do not reflect substantial changes, the Union will remain in opposition to his nomination.